Home

Freedom Activists Cry "Foul," When the NRA Obtains an Exemption Under the DISCLOSE Act

Posted June 19th, 2010 by Michael Erickson
In response to the United States Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case (which overturned restrictions on political speech by corporations and unions), Democrats (and also RINO Delaware Congressman Michael Castle, who is running presently for the chance to become the new "Lincoln Chafee" of the United States Senate) are proposing the DISCLOSE Act. This will impose draconian restrictions on the free speech of political advocacy groups, as well as mandate that they publicize their donors. For groups like the National Organization of Marriage, whose supporters have been pilloried relentlessly by the homosexual lobby, a disclosure mandate threatens to put them out of business. Activists rightly cry "foul," when the NRA responds with a back room deal. Michael Erickson offers his explanation of this NRA sell out.

Here is an article entitled "NRA negotiates DISCLOSE Act exemption, WAVE, GOA protest for different reasons," as written by Peggy Williams in examiner.com:

The NRA’s recent negotiations with House Democrats to exempt the influential gun rights group from the newly proposed DISCLOSE Act has opposing groups protesting in concert.

The proposed legislation would require corporations, unions and non-profit organizations that support or oppose candidates to disclose their major funding sources. The NRA exemption has raised the ire of a number of groups, including the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort (WAVE) and the national Gun Owners of America (GOA), but for very different reasons.

WAVE’s Executive Director Jeri Bonavia, in a June 18 email message to supporters, called the NRA negotiations and DISCLOSE Act exemption “disgusting.”

“Not surprisingly,” Bonvia said, “gun violence prevention groups and many others were outraged by this deal, and we've been letting Congress know.” Bonavia is especially concerned that the legislation will include a separate set of rules for the NRA.

The GOA, on the other hand, is angered that the NRA, in effect, sold out when it made its deal with House Representatives. A message on the organization's website home page, ostensibly penned by GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt, accused the NRA of having “abandoned the principle of protecting the free speech rights of all Americans, so long as their ox is not being gored in this instance.” The GOA supports the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC and believes any attempt to work around that decision would be unconstitutional.

The message to its 300,000 members went on to say in regard to the NRA, “Apparently it's ok to 'carve out' a little free speech if you're in the role of the 'elitists.' "

Members of the GOA are not happy because if the legislation passes with the NRA exemption, it will “leave millions and millions of gun owners and sportsmen belonging to dozens of different organizations out in the cold.”

The DISCLOSE Act was proposed in April by Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI), Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and 47 other co-sponsors (including Wisconsin’s Herb Kohl)in the Senate in reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision in January to overturn the Federal Election Commission’s restrictions on corporate and other special interest spending on campaign advertisements.

In the Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court declared that corporations have the same rights as individual citizens to free speech. The result is that corporations and special interest groups have been given free rein to spend unlimited amounts to influence elections. This decision caused a huge uproar when it was announced.

Sen. Feingold said in an April press release, “The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United was a tragic error…the results of the decision are far reaching, giving big corporations greater power to sway elections and drown out the voices of average Americans. While no bill can reverse the Court’s mistake, we need to make sure that the public can follow the money and see exactly who is behind the onslaught of political advertising that the decision has unleashed. That is why this bill is so important.”

House Democrats eventually signed on, proposing their own version of the DISCLOSE Act with 114 co-sponsors, including Wisconsin Representatives Steve Kagen, Gwen Moore, and Ron Kind. However, the National Rifle Association (NRA) threatened to figuratively shoot down the legislation through their immensely powerful lobby efforts. To salvage the proposed legislation, House Dems struck a deal with the NRA that grants that organization along with a very few other special interest groups an exemption from the bill.

A Comment from Bradley Smith, Center for Competitive Politics

On June 19th, 2010 Michael Erickson says:
Here is a related comment entitled "How the DISCLOSE Act would affect free speech and the NRA," as written by Bradley Smith (Chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics), and as published as a letter to the editor by the Washington Post: In their June 17 op-ed column, " . . . No, it's a matter of election honesty," Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Michael Castle (R-Del.) concluded that the Disclose Act "simply places disclosure requirements on political activities." This is not true. In fact, beyond its disclosure provisions, which for the most part simply duplicate existing laws and seek to burden speech with excessive regulation, the act would directly prohibit a great deal of political speech that was legal even before the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Prior to Citizens United, corporations and unions were free to speak about officeholders and candidates, without specifically advocating their election or defeat, for all but the 30 days immediately preceding a primary or the 60 days immediately preceding a general election. The Disclose Act, however, defines literally thousands of both nonprofit and for-profit entities as "government contractors" and prohibits them from mentioning a political candidate or officeholder for a period starting 90 days before the primary and going straight through to the general election. In Illinois and Indiana this year, that would be a speech blackout of one full year. In virtually all states it amounts to a blackout of six months or more for thousands of potential speakers. It is even worse in presidential elections, where the blackout period starts 120 days before the New Hampshire primary, or around Labor Day 2011, and lasts through the 2012 general election. It should be axiomatic that Congress cannot respond to a Supreme Court decision guaranteeing speech rights by limiting speech that was legal even before that decision.

A Comment from Michael Erickson

On June 19th, 2010 Michael Erickson says:
Thank you for including me in this email thread. I have reviewed several emails on this matter, as well as your own comments; and I am in agreement that this shows a lack of principled resistance on the part of the NRA. The rationale that this is some sort of Machiavellian strategy on the part of the NRA to defeat the bill, by obtaining an exemption that would turn off the Left, simply does not ring true to me. What is much more plausible is that the NRA saw this as an opportunity to strengthen its own hand, as one of the few "protected" advocacy groups in Washington, versus the smaller upstarts. This is about competing for dollars from the existing pool of potential members. This is also about serving the self-interest of a small clique within the NRA, which views Second Amendment protection not so much from the vantage point of securing our liberties, but from the more mundane view of securing a marketplace for their wares (firearms and ammunition). I am as much a friend of the Second Amendment as anyone else, but I am not so naive as to think that the major firearms and ammunition manufacturers see this struggle as anything more noble than maintaining a legal marketplace, stifling out the "competition," and thus increasing their own profit margins. It is in the self-interest of this clique, and of the NRA as an institution, for the NRA to become the "AARP" of the Second Amendment, the Bill of Rights be damned; and this exemption falls in line with that larger goal.

A Letter from a Friend to Michael Erickson

On June 20th, 2010 Michael Erickson says:
Not certain I understood some of your references. NRA does not sell products, other than their memberships, lobbying & training. They actually do a pretty good job of that, except for the fact that in their willingness to compromise, they have progressively compromised fundamental gun rights. But maybe you meant that some on their board are industry connected? That has some merit, but in either case, it seems to me that the politics of making the alligator stronger so that they will eat you last is a pretty poor strategy. My dispute with NRA is, and has always been, that for whatever reasons, the organization prefers political manipulation to principled resistance. Gun Owners of America, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (www.jpfo.org) and the Second Amendment Society, to name a few, are much less inclined to compromise, and indeed, when NRA was not only hanging back, but actively resisting, it was the other organizations that proceeded with the successful Heller case, which NRA joined after the fact, then took all the credit for the win.

A Response from Michael Erickson to the Friend

On June 20th, 2010 Michael Erickson says:
Thank you for your comment. Indeed, when I referred previously to the selling of products, I was commenting upon those Board members who are "industry connected." I realize that, as an institution, the NRA does not sell firearms or ammunition; but I am of the mind that they are inordinately influenced by those who do. That would explain their penchant for political manipulation, rather than principled resistance. It has been my experience that men who have a "bottom line" approach to political disputes (meaning, in this context, men who see "politics" not primarily as a means of safeguarding God given liberties, but as one among a number of means of carving out the best position possible for their profit motives, which is to say as another extension of their business) generally disfavor concrete, principled advocacy, in favor of "behind the scenes" dealmaking, where they are less likely to make permanent foes of any of the political personalities or parties in power. We see this same dynamic locally in the Sonoma County Alliance: rather than be a courageous voice against out of control, local taxes and cumbersome regulations on both business and private property, the Alliance aims to "make a deal" with the socialists in charge, opting always for the half loaf and even, at times, promoting wealth redistribution scams of their own (i.e. Alliance support for the "train to nowhere"). They carve out each election cycle a case by case accommodation for their own, profit driven concerns within the dominant, leftist culture, rather than being a force to change that culture. In the long run, this defensive strategy ("speak softly and carry no stick") is a losing one, which indeed we have seen with the recent political demise of the Alliance and many of the candidates sponsored by Herb Williams. In my mind, the NRA is akin to an "Alliance" for the Second Amendment, except of course on a much larger scale. That is not to say that it does not provide some real benefit for its members. Also, a case may be made that its "behind the scenes" approach is at least one reason why it has made significant inroads among "blue dog" Democrat officeholders. Perhaps if it were more like the GOA or the JPFO, in terms of their more overt, "in your face" advocacy of liberty, it would be harder for these Democrats to "dance" with them and still remain on good terms with their liberal caucus leaders. Nevertheless, I still contend that, at a certain point, the NRA crosses the line, where their penchant for "behind the scenes" winks and nods with the entrenched political class in Washington makes them more hurtful than otherwise for the cause that they espouse. Dropping opposition to the DISCLOSE Act is a case in point: this act will be "McCain-Feingold" on steroids, in terms of the effective silencing of advocacy speech by defenders of the Bill of Rights, and its passage thus cannot but be devastating over time to the Second Amendment.